Three Americans Die Every Hour because of lack of a national health care system.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

If you knew any economics, you might be dangerous.

Seems like he just summarized it pretty well.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Caper

Once in a while you say some very crazy things... this is one of those crazy things.

I counted three or four.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Exactly, here is an example which happened not far from me of showing an example of how it commonly plays out, dreams of the deluded not with standing

According to the article, this was six years ago. Is there evidence that this is still occurring at this scale? And as a more general question which is more important the legitimate jobs a company and benefit a company produces, or the crimes it commits in providing those benefits? Why are these companies still in business?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

It is, among other things, tax fraud on the part of the employer.

I wouldn't make it criminal. I would simply make the entire company forfeit to the government with no compensation whatsoever. (Adverse Possession in other words.)

Seize the entire assets of a handful of facillities and you will catch the attention of employers everywhere. If illegals have no way to work, or can only work small scale, under the table, most of the issues disappear. It is only when there are jobs aplenty and easily acquired with only wrist slappings for those who hire illegals that we have a flood of people improperly crossing the border. The focus needs to be on US businesses and citizens that are causing this problem not the illegals who are the true victims of exploitation and abuse.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by balrog666

Prosecuted by whom? And on what evidence? By definition, there is no paper trail and illegals don't hang around for months or years (especially when they aren't being paid) to testify to anyone?

If they are working on the scale you seem to be proposing then a raid at any given time should produce all the evidence needed. Once companies are being shut down and assets seized, other companies will either take notice and stop the process or follow their fellow criminal corporations into asset seizure and dissolution.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

I'd still like to see the fact that illegals pay taxes addressed.

Hey-
Canada has some sort of universal health care.
As a US Citizen, working in Canada, and paying Canadian taxes--lots of taxes--, I am told--Thanks for the money---you have to provide your own health care. Don't try to use ours, except in an emergency--and then your US insurance will still have to pay for it--or you will.
So don't let the "UHC" advocat3es get away with anything.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Hey-
Canada has some sort of universal health care.
As a US Citizen, working in Canada, and paying Canadian taxes--lots of taxes--, I am told--Thanks for the money---you have to provide your own health care. Don't try to use ours, except in an emergency--and then your US insurance will still have to pay for it--or you will.
So don't let the "UHC" advocat3es get away with anything.

I am assuming you know that this all UHC are not the same? We bring people to our facility from all over the world. Not once have we had to pay for any treatment for any while they have been here when we send them to the local NHS facility. Irony is this is a US company I work for who provide me with a very good health insurance which I rarely use because it is usually the same consultants and surgeons and in fact with my last operation the waiting list on NHS was shorter. The greed and callousness of most opponents to UHC is sickening.

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Companies that hire undocumented workers do it habitually with the right allocation of resources and federal and state co-operation it would be easy to follow tips and leads and catch them red handed. I say let the states prosecute with the feds help in catching.

You could offer the undocumented workers a VISA to testify or even Ronald Regan amnesty!

Thats actually really good. The workers would get a job, find out about the amnesty offer if they turn their boss in and BOOM another one bites the dust! This would work in both directions because after a few workers turned in their bosses for citizenship the bosses all over America would be terrified to hire any undocumented workers! I am a bloody genius!

When you are dealing with the big employers for chicken/meat processing, the workers all have a valid ID/SSN and it has even been validated through the Fed verification system.
It just isn't their own.
But, who cares, the employer is in the clear.
Because they pay off Congress to make the rules that way.

OTOH, Florida (among several states) used a similar employee verification system that attached people to a picture. Or, they did, until the US Dept of Justice said that was discriminatory and killed it.

Gee, just who is at fault here if you want to impose a fine somewhere?

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by Trakar

If they are working on the scale you seem to be proposing then a raid at any given time should produce all the evidence needed. Once companies are being shut down and assets seized, other companies will either take notice and stop the process or follow their fellow criminal corporations into asset seizure and dissolution.

Read the news - raids go on all the time.

But the employer can never be at fault because of the federal regulations currently in place.

Gee, I wonder whose fault that might be?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by balrog666

Read the news - raids go on all the time.

But the employer can never be at fault because of the federal regulations currently in place.

Gee, I wonder whose fault that might be?

Primarily Reagan. But businesses pay a lot of money to lobbyists and legislators to ensure a steady supply of cheap labor that they cannot be held responsible for.

I would be more than happy to treat business owners the way drug dealers are dealt with. I've been calling for that for decades. But I've also predicted that it won't happen for the same reason they won't decriminalize drug use. There is just too much money on the line. Illegal immigrants enures a large supply of workers and particularly workers willing to work for less than minimum wage. Econ 101. Supply and demand. Trust me on this. Nothing will change because there's fare too much money at stake.

[keale]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Primarily Reagan. But businesses pay a lot of money to lobbyists and legislators to ensure a steady supply of cheap labor that they cannot be held responsible for.

I would be more than happy to treat business owners the way drug dealers are dealt with. I've been calling for that for decades. But I've also predicted that it won't happen for the same reason they won't decriminalize drug use. There is just too much money on the line. Illegal immigrants enures a large supply of workers and particularly workers willing to work for less than minimum wage. Econ 101. Supply and demand. Trust me on this. Nothing will change because there's fare too much money at stake.

Theres one of those things that dont make a lot of sense until you factor in $$$$$ and then many things look reasonable.

[uruk]

Originally Posted by schplurg

Yes, that is exactly true. Things cost money! Very good! Are we to heal the entire world now?

I seriously doubt that a poor Somalian who can't afford health care has the resources to get to America to take advantage of our healthcare system. So I don't think you have to worry about those guys.

Quote:

Yes, there is a limit to how much money we can spend. This is something that the libs can't seem to understand.

And we could spend less if the uninsured could get preventative care so that they don't get to the point where we have to pay for emergency health care.
How do you think hospitals get money back for indigent health care? Ever wonder why an asperin at the hospital costs you $12.00? It's called "cost transfer:.

Quote:

I sure as hell never said "that the U.S. is a moral, honorable,and god fearing country." I've never heard anyone say that, except you.

I hear it alot from right wing conservatives. "This country was founded on Christian values", "One nation under god",
"God fearing American citizens" etc..

[uruk]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And of course plenty of people from the U.S. go to Mexico for medical treatment already, but for a different set of reasons.

The main one is that it is cheaper.

Going to the dentist is alot cheaper in Mexico than it is in the U.S. and the worke the dentists does is top notch. People along the border here, do it all the time.

Also medicine, You can get your perscription cheaper across the border. If you don't mind the occasional gun fire. (didn't used to be that way before the rise of the drug lords)

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by balrog666

When you are dealing with the big employers for chicken/meat processing, the workers all have a valid ID/SSN and it has even been validated through the Fed verification system.
It just isn't their own.
But, who cares, the employer is in the clear.
Because they pay off Congress to make the rules that way.

OTOH, Florida (among several states) used a similar employee verification system that attached people to a picture. Or, they did, until the US Dept of Justice said that was discriminatory and killed it.

Gee, just who is at fault here if you want to impose a fine somewhere?

I don't think there is a working fed verification system in place.

Look I am not a HR rep but I have hired people and I think its ridiculous to think the people doing the hiring aren't aware of the people they are hiring.

If there was no one willing to hire undocumented workers there wouldn't be any. Its the corporations who are at fault and they should be the ones to suffer. They are literally ruining this country with illegal immigrants and they must be stopped.

Besides the immigration policy for the last 30 years hasn't worked so lets try it my way and go after the trouble makers! What is there to lose?

I would like to get back to healthcare if we could.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by balrog666

Read the news - raids go on all the time.

But the employer can never be at fault because of the federal regulations currently in place.

Gee, I wonder whose fault that might be?

Looks like a lot of hand waving and assertions but you seem to be very short on substantive support for your postion?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

...I would like to get back to healthcare if we could.

Good point, so how do we get from where we are at to actual healthcare that works, is cost effective, and covers everyone?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Good point, so how do we get from where we are at to actual healthcare that works, is cost effective, and covers everyone?

It will take a few years of what we have now before people decide that they have to go all-in. This is the least efficient way to make such a transition, but it's political sausage.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

100% yes! You will never catch every undocumented worker trying to find them one or two at a time. Get rid of the jobs and they will stop coming into this country. Put a couple dozen CEO's behind bars and confiscate their wealth and you will give the rest of the business community a wake up.

After a couple years the problem will have solved its self.


I thought this was meant to be about NHC but I see the we got off track and I am partially to blame for that.

So its established that conservatives in this thread don't want a single asprin from their medicine cabinet going to an "illegal"

What about someone like me? I am here legally, I don't do drugs, I work, and I can't afford healthcare. I am not trying to scam the system I just can't afford it. Would you be opposed to someone like me having an asprin from your medicine cabinet or should I sell my small business and go work for a company that will offer me healthcare?

Why, you should just roll over and die like a little baby small business owner, of course! When the GOP talks about "business" what they mean is big business, and big business needs cogs in the wheel - and cogs have no business thinking they can do it themselves.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Good point, so how do we get from where we are at to actual healthcare that works, is cost effective, and covers everyone?

Well I have a back up plan. The rest of this decade is dedicated to making my business grow. When I can sell it I will cash out and take advantage of my duel citizenship and move to europe and establish residency. Sell my house my cars, my business, and I am done.

If on the other hand America gets its act together I will consider staying. I can only see Americans reconsidering UHC as costs will continue to rise at absurd rates under our current system.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Why, you should just roll over and die like a little baby small business owner, of course! When the GOP talks about "business" what they mean is big business, and big business needs cogs in the wheel - and cogs have no business thinking they can do it themselves.

Thank you. Now I know my place!

Seriously would like to hear from those opposed to UHC because they are afraid illegal immigrants will receive services if I deserve the same fate?

(I will not take offense to any answers as I realize I set myself up as the topic.)

[Wolrab]

According to this site:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm/

in 2009- 2,437,163 people died in the US.
That boils down to 278 per hour.

I'm supposed to care about three?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

According to this site:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm/

in 2009- 2,437,163 people died in the US.
That boils down to 278 per hour.

I'm supposed to care about three?

I would argue yes. We ought to care about all of them. It would be fallacy to assert we can't do anything because we can't do everything. To the extent we can solve a problem and alleviate unnecessary suffering and prevent death, and doing so will significantly better society then we ought to do that.

Yeah.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

According to this site:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm/

in 2009- 2,437,163 people died in the US.
That boils down to 278 per hour.

I'm supposed to care about three?

Three per hour is 27,000 or so per year.

A couple of years before 2009, your country got AWFULLY upset about 3,000 or so people dying when they shouldn´t have.

Why then, do most of you people not give a damn about nine times as many people dying avoidably EVERY SINGLE YEAR? Is people dying avoidably only worth getting upset about if you can use it to kill some foreigners?

[Wolrab]

How about they word it that having a national health care system would only effect
1% of the people that die every year?
There are programs available for the indigent. Those programs are offered every time someone comes into the ER (at least in NY).
There are a gazillion ways to lower preventable deaths from stopping smoking to putting stickies in the tub, why give the government control over the health care industry?

The 3000 killed on 9/11 were murdered. Are you equating not getting health insurance with murder?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

How about they word it that having a national health care system would only effect
1% of the people that die every year?
There are programs available for the indigent. Those programs are offered every time someone comes into the ER (at least in NY).
There are a gazillion ways to lower preventable deaths from stopping smoking to putting stickies in the tub, why give the government control over the health care industry?

A.) We haven't given control of health care to govt. B.) It's in our best interest to see to the health and well being of citizens. C.) It's demonstrable that current programs are insufficient. D.) It's demonstrable that the staus quo is the most expensive health care system of any industrialized nations and in many measurable ways among the worst.

Quote:

The 3000 killed on 9/11 were murdered. Are you equating not getting health insurance with murder?

Neglect comes pretty close to murder.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by RandFan

...

Neglect comes pretty close to murder.

So the next time you see a wino in the gutter, or a junkie shooting up, you're going to force him to go to a hospital?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

So the next time you see a wino in the gutter, or a junkie shooting up, you're going to force him to go to a hospital?

What does that have to do with neglect? If I saw someone who was dying I would call an ambulance. If a junkie or wino asked me to take them to the hospital I would. Help me out here? What are you talking about?

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What does that have to do with neglect? If I saw someone who was dying I would call an ambulance. If a junkie or wino asked me to take them to the hospital I would. Help me out here? What are you talking about?

Simply the fact that the OP and thread title are misleading, to say the least.
There are people who cannot afford health care-this we all know and admit. But the numbers include those who are at the "Don't give a damn" stage, who refuse to admit problems (or are incapable of knowing they have health problems), and refuse to use the safety net that is actually there, as has been discussed here and everywhere the situation has been brought up. No hospital can refuse treatment in an emergency.
We all have sympathy for the young person dying of some horrible disease whose family (or themselves) cannot afford the expensive treatment-yet many of them get that treatment via donations/charity/foundations. It is the homeless, the junkies, the winos-the so-called "Dregs of Society" who die in large numbers without medical care, and who refuse/don't care to use it that count toward that number.
We cannot force them to avail themselves of the resources available, until actual life-threatening crisis, at which time it is often too late.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

How about they word it that having a national health care system would only effect
1% of the people that die every year?
There are programs available for the indigent. Those programs are offered every time someone comes into the ER (at least in NY).
There are a gazillion ways to lower preventable deaths from stopping smoking to putting stickies in the tub, why give the government control over the health care industry?

The 3000 killed on 9/11 were murdered. Are you equating not getting health insurance with murder?

You were asking if you should care about three people per hour dying every year. I´m simply asking what makes them so much less careworthy than one extra death every three hours during one year... especially if the chosen way to "care about" them simply got a lot more people killed as well, not to mention cost a crapload of money. Here, in contrast, is a way of caring about deaths that saves lives, works better than what you have now, and is cheaper as well.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Simply the fact that the OP and thread title are misleading, to say the least.
There are people who cannot afford health care-this we all know and admit. But the numbers include those who are at the "Don't give a damn" stage, who refuse to admit problems (or are incapable of knowing they have health problems), and refuse to use the safety net that is actually there, as has been discussed here and everywhere the situation has been brought up. No hospital can refuse treatment in an emergency.
We all have sympathy for the young person dying of some horrible disease whose family (or themselves) cannot afford the expensive treatment-yet many of them get that treatment via donations/charity/foundations. It is the homeless, the junkies, the winos-the so-called "Dregs of Society" who die in large numbers without medical care, and who refuse/don't care to use it that count toward that number.
We cannot force them to avail themselves of the resources available, until actual life-threatening crisis, at which time it is often too late.

But what about people like me? I am not indigent. I own my business. I simply can not afford health insurance right now and do not qualify for any assistance even if enrollment wasn't frozen in my state. Myself and other family members have spent hours and hours trying to find programs that I could qualify for with no luck. The amount of regulation and requirements is beyond confusing and leaves one feeling helpless.

If I got seriously ill I know my family would go bankrupt to save me. Is that what should happen? Small business owners should be chased out of the market and into jobs with healthcare? The costs of health care in America are insane, they stifle business, and are the number one cause of bankruptcy. Simply put the system is great for everyone but the customer.

Why not have a UHC? Are you opposed to me having health insurance because the risk of a smoking wino getting treatment is too great?

Eta: my only medical condition right now are panic/anxiety attacks. Because of this I buy prescription medication from drug dealers. Great system America.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

...We all have sympathy for the young person dying of some horrible disease whose family (or themselves) cannot afford the expensive treatment-yet many of them get that treatment via donations/charity/foundations. It is the homeless, the junkies, the winos-the so-called "Dregs of Society" who die in large numbers without medical care, and who refuse/don't care to use it that count toward that number...

Being poor or homeless, does not make one a "Dreg."
Please cite the evidence that leads you to conclude that these "Dregs" are the main, major, or even significant components of those who are currently dying in large numbers due to lack of medical care. Surely there must be some numbers to support this contention?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Simply the fact that the OP and thread title are misleading, to say the least.
There are people who cannot afford health care-this we all know and admit. But the numbers include those who are at the "Don't give a damn" stage, who refuse to admit problems (or are incapable of knowing they have health problems), and refuse to use the safety net that is actually there, as has been discussed here and everywhere the situation has been brought up. No hospital can refuse treatment in an emergency.
We all have sympathy for the young person dying of some horrible disease whose family (or themselves) cannot afford the expensive treatment-yet many of them get that treatment via donations/charity/foundations. It is the homeless, the junkies, the winos-the so-called "Dregs of Society" who die in large numbers without medical care, and who refuse/don't care to use it that count toward that number.
We cannot force them to avail themselves of the resources available, until actual life-threatening crisis, at which time it is often too late.

I'm sorry but this doesn't address the issue you raised. We aren't talking about people who refuse medical care but people who can't get it. I've posted links over and over to demonstrate that there are lots of people who want health care but can't get it. See here and here for a couple. Charity is NOT enough. That is a red herring. One we are long past. Reasonable people recognize that we can't simply hope that charity will take care of the problem because it won't.

So, I'm still waiting to find out what my forcing someone to get health care has to do with neglect? So far it's "ooh, look over there". Yes, I get that some people will refuse health care. I'm talking about "neglect", that would be to allow a person who wants health care to go untreated. Got it? Forcing people to do something against their will ISN'T the opposite of neglect.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by Travis

I find all this talk about illegals interesting since Mexico is likely going to have full universal healthcare before the USA and it will actually be Americans sneaking into Mexico that will be the problem.

Cuba has UVHC..... The traffic from the island goes one way.

Also Canada has had UHC for decades.... I've lived here all my life. I have never heard of Canada dealing with a flood of American refugees coming in for the health care. If they aren't coming to Canada in droves... Why would they ever go to Mexico.

[Biscuit]

An interesting report on the benefits of Medicaid.

Quote:

"People reported their health to be much better once they were insured," Baicker says. "The probability that they reported themselves to be in good, very good or excellent health increased by 25 percent."

Healthy people are productive and cost less to heal.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Caper

Cuba has UVHC..... The traffic from the island goes one way.

Also Canada has had UHC for decades.... I've lived here all my life. I have never heard of Canada dealing with a flood of American refugees coming in for the health care. If they aren't coming to Canada in droves... Why would they ever go to Mexico.

Because Canad UHC is not extended to anyone who is not a legal permanent resident,even if they are legally in the country and paying Canadian Taxes.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Because Canad UHC is not extended to anyone who is not a legal permanent resident,even if they are legally in the country and paying Canadian Taxes.

Yes, but is there a massive amount of Americans in line to become citizens of Canada to gain access to our health care? Is it every Americans dream to someday grow up and get accepted as a Canadian citizen in order to get Canadian health care?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by balrog666

Uh, what? Did I miss something? Do I need to take some bleeding-heart liberals off "ignore" or what?

To be honest, I probably meant to invoke Beerina, not you.

Like the return of the G'Kar avatar, by the way. (Did you know I got Andreas Katsulas's autograph? Twice?)

Rolfe.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by Caper

Yes, but is there a massive amount of Americans in line to become citizens of Canada to gain access to our health care? Is it every Americans dream to someday grow up and get accepted as a Canadian citizen in order to get Canadian health care?

Not a valid argument. You are assuming health care outweighs all the other advantages of being a US citizen.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Robrob

Not a valid argument. You are assuming health care outweighs all the other advantages of being a US citizen.

Well, at the least, they were assuming that healthcare outweighs all the other inherent disadvantages of being Canadian.

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

To be honest, I probably meant to invoke Beerina, not you.

Like the return of the G'Kar avatar, by the way. (Did you know I got Andreas Katsulas's autograph? Twice?)

Rolfe.

Nice! I never got to meet the man. I wish I still traveled so I could meet the people who impressed me so ...